W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Generated content via URI

From: Spartanicus <spartanicus.3@ntlworld.ie>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:55:47 +0000
Message-ID: <n2m-g.cn3pt2d4gps00594e3u38htlo151qjj9t7@4ax.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote:

>First, what a UA means by "automatic image display disabled" is not for 
>CSS to define.

"automatic image display disabled" is my description of a situation that
falls under the broader "If the user agent cannot display the resource"
condition as described in the draft. The relevant question here is if
the UA behaviour is being defined by CSS, and it is (or at least was).

>Second, about the text in the spec: although the WG thought that in most 
>cases it was preferable to display nothing instead of an image that 
>failed to download, there were people who believed there exist document 
>formats that rely on images being displayed (no ALT text, e.g.)

Which document formats, why are these document formats abusing CSS to
embed non presentational content, and why does the WG think that CSS
should facilitate such usage?

>and in that case it would be safer to warn the user of a failure.
>
>In CSS3, we plan to extend the 'content' property to a comma-separated 
>list, so that the style sheet writer controls the fallback, e.g.: 
>'content: url(danger.png), "Danger!"'. But that's not for CSS2.

Doing so seems to abandon what I've always held dear as a fundamental
principle: that CSS is about presentation only and should be considered
100% optional. Extending it in the way described throws the door wide
open to abandon the distinction between content/markup and styling/CSS.

-- 
Spartanicus

(email whitelist in use, non list-server mail will not be seen)
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 23:47:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:49 GMT